Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, RayDog said:

They voted to be a state and a couple weeks ago the governor asked Trump for them to become a state. It is assumed he said no even though statehood is supported in the Republican party platform. They (and DC) will become a state when the Democrats are in charge which will likely be the first part pf 2021. 

DC should be mostly be given back to Maryland.  The national mall, the White House, and Congress should be the only thing in "DC."  The President should be the only resident with a DC address.

PR has long been invested in the status quo.  They voted in a poorly worded non-binding referendum that had intentionally low turnout since status quo people boycotted it.  They need to have a real vote without status quo as an option.  And identity plays a huge role for those who support the status quo, so they need to be forced to choose one of the other 2 options.  There will be no more PR baseball team in the World Baseball Classic. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

DC should be mostly be given back to Maryland.  The national mall, the White House, and Congress should be the only thing in "DC."  The President should be the only resident with a DC address.

PR has long been invested in the status quo.  They voted in a poorly worded non-binding referendum that had intentionally low turnout since status quo people boycotted it.  They need to have a real vote without status quo as an option.  And identity plays a huge role for those who support the status quo, so they need to be forced to choose one of the other 2 options.  There will be no more PR baseball team in the World Baseball Classic. 

None of what you said matters. Both DC and PR have completed the necessary steps to request statehood. They are merely waiting for a receptive Congress and president.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because we don't give a shit about poor people.  God forbid we emulate Denmark, a country that has near the highest quality of life in the world.  But it doesn't start with poor people.  We don't even give a shit about teachers, social workers, or any of the other people who try to help the impoverished people of our country learn how to use their "bootstraps."  You think a Danish public school teacher is barely making ends meet like an Oklahoma teacher?  

Much of it is about making a more equitable split between the boss and the lowest worker at both private companies and public facilities.  Actual welfare spending per capita in Denmark isn't blowing our welfare spending away.  In 2013, they spent $13,259.80 per capita.  We spent $9,838.40.  And much of that gap comes from single payer healthcare spending, and not from additional housing or food subsidies.  But their employers, both public and private, pay their employees a living wage, so there is less need for subsidies for people that are employed.

People are just streaming into Denmark, yo...  that wouldn't have any impact on that gap, now would it?

 

and that 60.2% Income Tax rate...that's dreamy, ain't it?

 

Fucking Denmark?  Gotdammit, that's like wanting to be the New Mexico State   of the world.

Edited July 28, 2018 by slorch

[bad_teammate 13132]

Does Denmark put toddlers in concentration camps? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 hours ago, RayDog said:

None of what you said matters. Both DC and PR have completed the necessary steps to request statehood. They are merely waiting for a receptive Congress and president.

No, PR has not filed an application for statehood. They are trying to create an internal bill to set up an application for statehood.  And DC hasn't and doesnt have to do anything until they do.

Also, the GOP has officially supported PR statehood if PR chooses it for decades. Will they approve it in this current environment? Probably not but only one way to find out. PR needs to officially start the process and see what happens. They dont need to ask Trump shit.  They could have it sitting in Congress now waiting for them to vote on it or sit on it, and it would be there for a Dem Congress to pass on day 1. But PR support for statehood will instantly fall with a Dem Congress. You really do undervalue how they feel about having a separate identity.   The closest thing would be Scotland, but the US does not allow states to have that type of autonomy or separate identity.  Their desires go in this order:

1: Status quo with Dem Congress that provides support.

2: Statehood

3: Status quo with GOP Congress.

4: Independent country.

But they do need a new binding referendum because they need a consensus, and the majority have long been unwilling to break the status quo. That fact plays into the GOPs hands since it becomes an undemocratic push to statehood. 

[Clob94 121]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

No, PR has not filed an application for statehood. They are trying to create an internal bill to set up an application for statehood.  And DC hasn't and doesnt have to do anything until they do.

Also, the GOP has officially supported PR statehood if PR chooses it for decades. Will they approve it in this current environment? Probably not but only one way to find out. PR needs to officially start the process and see what happens. They dont need to ask Trump shit.  They could have it sitting in Congress now waiting for them to vote on it or sit on it, and it would be there for a Dem Congress to pass on day 1. But PR support for statehood will instantly fall with a Dem Congress. You really do undervalue how they feel about having a separate identity.   The closest thing would be Scotland, but the US does not allow states to have that type of autonomy or separate identity.  Their desires go in this order:

1: Status quo with Dem Congress that provides support.

2: Statehood

3: Status quo with GOP Congress.

4: Independent country.

But they do need a new binding referendum because they need a consensus, and the majority have long been unwilling to break the status quo. That fact plays into the GOPs hands since it becomes an undemocratic push to statehood. 

If PR becomes a state, wouldn't they then also be forced to pay federal income tax-- as most do not currently? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Clob94 said:

If PR becomes a state, wouldn't they then also be forced to pay federal income tax-- as most do not currently? 

Yes. One of the reasons they favor having their cake and eating it too when there is a favorable Congress. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Clob94 121]

48 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yes. One of the reasons they favor having their cake and eating it too when there is a favorable Congress. 

Eating their cake and having it too..... not being a dick, I can just hear my Aunt the literature teacher correcting me in my mind. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Clob94 said:

Eating their cake and having it too..... not being a dick, I can just hear my Aunt the literature teacher correcting me in my mind. 

Your Russian aunt is wrong. In the phrase, having the cake comes before eating it. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23393]

Eat-have ordering makes more logical sense.  You can have your cake and eat it too. You can't eat your cake and have it too. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Eat/have cake was part of how they found the unabomber, as told in the Netflix series Manhunt.   The unabomber persuaded me that eat before have is the way to go.  Not bombing people, though. 

Have before eat is the way 99% of Americans say it, though.  Hence how they were able to identify the unabomber, in part. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Guest]

Gotdammit, it  is based on a very simple concept.

 

Possessing the cake is one thing.  One should feel very blessed( indulgent) to be able to eat it too.

 

"You can't have your wife and fuck her too," right?

Edited July 28, 2018 by slorch

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, slorch said:

Gotdammit, it  is based on a very simple concept.

 

Possessing the cake is one thing.  One should feel very blessed( indulgent) to be able to eat it too.

 

"You can't have your wife and fuck her too," right?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Gotdammit, it  is based on a very simple concept.

 

Possessing the cake is one thing.  One should feel very blessed( indulgent) to be able to eat it too.

 

"You can't have your wife and fuck her too," right?

No, it's based on the notion that you can't consume and still possess.  The words were switched around by mistake in the 18th century and that's the version that got widely disseminated. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/magazine/20FOB-onlanguage-t.html

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, well...then people should fucking say it correctly.

 

I've always taken it to warn people about greed or 'wanting it all.'   Take what you are given.

 

Oh well.   What fucking difference does it make?  Let's be more like Denmark.    They have it all...   allegedly.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

 Their desires go in this order:

1: Status quo with Dem Congress that provides support.

2: Statehood

3: Status quo with GOP Congress.

4: Independent country.

Don't forget 5: Quasi-Autonomous Overseas Province of Spain. Wiki:

Quote

In 1897, Luis Muñoz Rivera and others persuaded the liberal Spanish government to agree to grant limited self-government to the island by royal decree in the Autonomic Charter, including a bicameral legislature.[65] In 1898, Puerto Rico's first, but short-lived, quasi-autonomous government was organized as an "overseas province" of Spain. This bilaterally agreed-upon charter maintained a governor appointed by the King of Spain – who held the power to annul any legislative decision – and a partially elected parliamentary structure. In February, Governor-General Manuel Macías inaugurated the new government under the Autonomic Charter. General elections were held in March and the new government began to function on July 17, 1898

They did that for eight days, before the US invaded in the Spanish-American War.

Edited July 28, 2018 by RDCanecutter

[Anastasis 23393]

Wait, PR don't pay federal income taxes. Starting to understand why one of my colleagues was seriously considering a move. 

[Clob94 121]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Your Russian aunt is wrong. In the phrase, having the cake comes before eating it. 

Benefits of a classical education. 

 

Hook'em 

[Guest]

I'm not an expert on idioms, but I thought that the "you can't eat your cake and have it too" expression was saying that once you eat your cake it is gone.  There is no such thing as perpetual cake that one can eat indefinitely.  So it is commentary on the conservation & symmetry laws of the universe and therefore an early version of the first law of thermodynamics.  

[Orca of Peace 109]

multiple meanings of the phrase which apparently was switched just 6 years later (1546) from the original (1538)

i always thought the everyday meaning was to show that someone cannot simultaneously do 2 contradictory things (such as post on Surly and still be a productive citizen).  But seems, that there are deeper meanings, and still deeper meanings which can only be understood by champions of masturbation. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Edited July 28, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[XR4ticlone 122]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Does Denmark put toddlers in concentration camps? 

Nah...they're only importing male Islamic terrorists in their late teens to twenties.   

[cmontexas 3250]

2 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Nah...they're only importing male Islamic terrorists in their late teens to twenties.   

Scary!

[EastTexan 662]

On July 27, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Js1 said:

Because we have a selfish, uneducated population, 30% that is brainwashed by Fox News to see anything that would make our society healthier, better educated and more sustainable as trying to steal from you.
 

Promote the general welfare just means FUCK YOU I GOT MINE!

Did not know AOC was living in a card board box. Nor Bernie and his wife. Them poor souls.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

15 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not an expert on idioms, but I thought that the "you can't eat your cake and have it too" expression was saying that once you eat your cake it is gone.  There is no such thing as perpetual cake that one can eat indefinitely.   

Well, that was our understanding of the universe, Norm. However, thanks to Olive Garden, we now know endless breadsticks exist in more than just theory. Of course the most relevant thing to keep in mind is Eat Shit And Die got it right the first time. 

[Buzzrock 14870]

Yes to statehood
Yes to Marshall Plan (which I assume is just heavy, heavy investment)
Yes to debt forgiveness
I don't know how any of these are even questions.

We know you don’t know that. You’re like the vegan crossfitter of surly. We all know exactly what you think about everything because you’ve told us over and over and over and over.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, EastTexan said:

Did not know AOC was living in a card board box. Nor Bernie and his wife. Them poor souls.

[RandomIdoit 655]

2 hours ago, EastTexan said:

Because we have a selfish, uneducated population, 30% that is brainwashed by Fox News to see anything that would make our society healthier, better educated and more sustainable as trying to steal from you

If there was a way to achieve this without raising the taxes on the middle class, more people would support it imo. A lot of people say only the extremely rich would be taxed, but that will not be enough to cover the amount of money needed. Then the next richest people would be taxed more. Eventually it's going to be the entire 55% that pays income tax.

[bad_teammate 13132]

7 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

If there was a way to achieve this without raising the taxes on the middle class, more people would support it imo. A lot of people say only the extremely rich would be taxed, but that will not be enough to cover the amount of money needed. Then the next richest people would be taxed more. Eventually it's going to be the entire 55% that pays income tax.

You can say that like it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

Nothing is done in isolation. Cut some spending items. Raise some revenue items. It's about prioritization of national wealth and resources and it's irrational to pretend like it's impossible.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can say that like it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

Nothing is done in isolation. Cut some spending items. Raise some revenue items. It's about prioritization of national wealth and resources and it's irrational to pretend like it's impossible.

Congress sure seems intent upon proving the naysayers correct.  When it comes to responsible spending/ tax reform, it is crickets as fuck when the discussion starts.

[RandomIdoit 655]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can say that like it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

Nothing is done in isolation. Cut some spending items. Raise some revenue items. It's about prioritization of national wealth and resources and it's irrational to pretend like it's impossible.

I'm talking about the posters on here who say, "why do you care? It's not like you are super rich." This is true, but I cannot support taxing rich people more and then complain when they decide to tax me more down the road. 

After reading a lot of discussion on here, I'm more in favor of a UBI for everyone and getting rid of all welfare except for those who are disabled, not mentally fit, and the elderly. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

Congress sure seems intent upon proving the naysayers correct.  When it comes to responsible spending/ tax reform, it is crickets as fuck when the discussion starts.

You absolutely cannot shame Congressmen for doing nothing when using phrases and ideas this vague. it's the equivalent of Trump Tweeting "DO SOMETHING"

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

... but I cannot support taxing rich people more and then complain when they decide to tax me more down the road. 

Why?

It's not about the individual humans, it's about the resources controlled by those people and the necessary uses of those resources. It's not personal, it's business. If you're wealthy enough to get hit with high taxes, it's not personal, it's monetary.

[Guest]

Real spending cuts are met by "cut them, not us."

 

Greater taxation has the same response.  hell, 45% or more of the people do not even pay Federal Income Tax.  Why the fuck would THEY care if it increased?  Vote that shit up, yo!!!

[RandomIdoit 655]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

It's not about the individual humans, it's about the resources controlled by those people and the necessary uses of those resources. It's not personal, it's business. If you're wealthy enough to get hit with high taxes, it's not personal, it's monetary.

What is "wealthy enough"? Around 18.5% of my income goes towards taxes already and I sure as he'll don't have a lot of discretionary income.

[bad_teammate 13132]

16 minutes ago, slorch said:

Real spending cuts are met by "cut them, not us."

Of course, which is why building policy solely around feelings of class resentment is problematic. There need to be areas of concrete economic focus and real, measurable goals. Right now we talk about a healthy economy being one that "grows", ignoring where that growth happens and who benefits. Similarly irrelevant views are employed when looking at spending cuts.

There are simple questions:
- What is the real, on-the-ground benefit of this spending?
- Could those benefits be achieved in a more efficient way?
- Are those benefits actually important? If yes, why?

Quote

Greater taxation has the same response.  hell, 45% or more of the people do not even pay Federal Income Tax.  Why the fuck would THEY care if it increased?  Vote that shit up, yo!!!

Plenty of people care if taxes that don't apply to them increase. A central voting issue for tens of millions of Americans is making sure literal billionaires pay less in taxes. Your characterization of the attitude here is completely ignorant.

10 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

What is "wealthy enough"? 

Literally whatever the bracket says. The brackets should be designed to maximize the efficient use of our national resources to achieve real goals. Luckily, we're already at some decent bracket delineations and all we really need to do is raise rates at the top.

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Literally whatever the bracket says. The brackets should be designed to maximize the efficient use of our national resources to achieve real goals. Luckily, we're already at some decent bracket delineations and all we really need to do is raise rates at the top

The people who will propose and vote on this tax plan are going to agree to this? I highly doubt it.

[XR4ticlone 122]

29 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

What is "wealthy enough"? Around 18.5% of my income goes towards taxes already and I sure as he'll don't have a lot of discretionary income. 

I worked at a summer camp in Maine between my JR & SR years at ISU. In 1992 it was $7500 to send your daughter to this camp for 2 months which didn't include any additional activities which could add up to a couple grand.  These were all very rich people (98% of them were Jewish...that only matters as they were also 98% NY leftist /democrats).

Some of the former campers worked as counselors as well.  Watching the 1991 DNC convention on the only TV in the break room I had enough & finally asked one of them..."you're rich...how can you be a Democrat?"  Long and short of it we got to taxes "So you think you & your family should pay more in taxes?"  "Of course not!  We pay too much already"  "Your family is for certain top a 10%, but most likely part of the  top 1% of incomes in the US.  If you don't think YOU should be paying more in taxes...who the fuck should?  Because that's what they're saying...they want more tax revenues.  You're voting for it.  Explain?"  

She tried to tell me there were a lot of other people richer than them that should pay more.  "Let's be honest...if you camped here you're family is in the top 1-5% of incomes.  My folks weren't making $80k a year with both working and my dad having a side job on top of farming at that point.  Should they pay more taxes?"  "Maybe".

The problem with the left is they're super generous with OPM.  They'll give it away and feel righteous about it.  "I'm such a wonderful person!  I helped!  I'm very giving!  I vote Democrat!"

GFY!  Giving away OPM is easy and earns you no credit. 

My go to is "Don't tell me how generous you are with OPM...tell me how generous you are with YOUR time and money..."  "Well I vote for Dems because I care!"  "No you vote for Dems so you can feel like you did something without doing anything at all."  Any jackass can give away someone else's time and money...and still be a worthless jackass.  

[David Dennison 18651]

4 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

I worked at a summer camp in Maine between my JR & SR years at ISU. In 1992 it was $7500 to send your daughter to this camp for 2 months which didn't include any additional activities which could add up to a couple grand.  These were all very rich people (98% of them were Jewish...that only matters as they were also 98% NY leftist /democrats).

Some of the former campers worked as counselors as well.  Watching the 1991 DNC convention on the only TV in the break room I had enough & finally asked one of them..."you're rich...how can you be a Democrat?"  Long and short of it we got to taxes "So you think you & your family should pay more in taxes?"  "Of course not!  We pay too much already"  "Your family is for certain top a 10%, but most likely part of the  top 1% of incomes in the US.  If you don't think YOU should be paying more in taxes...who the fuck should?  Because that's what they're saying...they want more tax revenues.  You're voting for it.  Explain?"  

She tried to tell me there were a lot of other people richer than them that should pay more.  "Let's be honest...if you camped here you're family is in the top 1-5% of incomes.  My folks weren't making $80k a year with both working and my dad having a side job on top of farming at that point.  Should they pay more taxes?"  "Maybe".

The problem with the left is they're super generous with OPM.  They'll give it away and feel righteous about it.  "I'm such a wonderful person!  I helped!  I'm very giving!  I vote Democrat!"

GFY!  Giving away OPM is easy and earns you no credit. 

My go to is "Don't tell me how generous you are with OPM...tell me how generous you are with YOUR time and money..."  "Well I vote for Dems because I care!"  "No you vote for Dems so you can feel like you did something without doing anything at all."  Any jackass can give away someone else's time and money...and still be a worthless jackass.  

I vote Democratic so I can give away your money and I don't give a fuck.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

3 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

I worked at a summer camp in Maine between my JR & SR years at ISU. In 1992 it was $7500 to send your daughter to this camp for 2 months which didn't include any additional activities which could add up to a couple grand.  These were all very rich people (98% of them were Jewish...that only matters as they were also 98% NY leftist /democrats).

Some of the former campers worked as counselors as well.  Watching the 1991 DNC convention on the only TV in the break room I had enough & finally asked one of them..."you're rich...how can you be a Democrat?"  Long and short of it we got to taxes "So you think you & your family should pay more in taxes?"  "Of course not!  We pay too much already"  "Your family is for certain top a 10%, but most likely part of the  top 1% of incomes in the US.  If you don't think YOU should be paying more in taxes...who the fuck should?  Because that's what they're saying...they want more tax revenues.  You're voting for it.  Explain?"  

She tried to tell me there were a lot of other people richer than them that should pay more.  "Let's be honest...if you camped here you're family is in the top 1-5% of incomes.  My folks weren't making $80k a year with both working and my dad having a side job on top of farming at that point.  Should they pay more taxes?"  "Maybe".

The problem with the left is they're super generous with OPM.  They'll give it away and feel righteous about it.  "I'm such a wonderful person!  I helped!  I'm very giving!  I vote Democrat!"

GFY!  Giving away OPM is easy and earns you no credit. 

My go to is "Don't tell me how generous you are with OPM...tell me how generous you are with YOUR time and money..."  "Well I vote for Dems because I care!"  "No you vote for Dems so you can feel like you did something without doing anything at all."  Any jackass can give away someone else's time and money...and still be a worthless jackass.  

This story is meaningless without stories and photos of girls who look like Rachel Weisz going through the rebellious Bang-a-Goy phase.

[RandomIdoit 655]

8 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

This story is meaningless without stories and photos of girls who look like Rachel Weisz going through the rebellious Bang-a-Goy phase.

Or at least some video of Jason Voorhees killing some camp counselors.

[Clob94 121]

19 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

multiple meanings of the phrase which apparently was switched just 6 years later (1546) from the original (1538)

i always thought the everyday meaning was to show that someone cannot simultaneously do 2 contradictory things (such as post on Surly and still be a productive citizen).  But seems, that there are deeper meanings, and still deeper meanings which can only be understood by champions of masturbation. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Aggy math? 

1546 - 1538 = 8

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Literally whatever the bracket says. The brackets should be designed to maximize the efficient use of our national resources to achieve real goals. Luckily, we're already at some decent bracket delineations and all we really need to do is raise rates at the top.

Thank you for the laugh of the week.

 

You probably still believe in the tooth fairy, too, right?

[David Dennison 18651]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Thank you for the laugh of the week.

 

You probably still believe in the tooth fairy, too, right?

So you obviously agree we should cut the Pentagon's budget in half. Cool.

[zork 629]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you obviously agree we should cut the Pentagon's budget in half. Cool.

We should cut the pentagon at 1.5 times the rate we cut every other program(besides interest expense), cool?Let us start with a 10% across the board cut this year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for a year.  Then do another 10% across the board cut the next year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for the next two years.  See where we are in terms of budget deficit and progress on cutting the national debt at that point to see if we need to do another series.  

Would it happen?  Never.

[David Dennison 18651]

1 minute ago, zork said:

We should cut the pentagon at 1.5 times the rate we cut every other program(besides interest expense), cool?Let us start with a 10% across the board cut this year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for a year.  Then do another 10% across the board cut the next year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for the next two years.  See where we are in terms of budget deficit and progress on cutting the national debt at that point to see if we need to do another series.  

Would it happen?  Never.

Our economy would crumble. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

We should cut the pentagon at 1.5 times the rate we cut every other program(besides interest expense), cool?Let us start with a 10% across the board cut this year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for a year.  Then do another 10% across the board cut the next year (15% for military).  Then hold it at no growth for the next two years.  See where we are in terms of budget deficit and progress on cutting the national debt at that point to see if we need to do another series.  

Would it happen?  Never.

That's basically what started under Obama with sequestration, without even the extra cuts to military.  Trump and the GOP pretty much killed it from continuing with this year's budget.  It could happen, but not with the current Republican party. 

[dOUblewide 101]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's basically what started under Obama with sequestration, without even the extra cuts to military.  Trump and the GOP pretty much killed it from continuing with this year's budget.  It could happen, but not with the current Republican party. 

Across the board cuts suck donkey balls. Public administrators and lawmakers need to go through the difficult process of deciding which capabilities and services can be cut. 

 

[zork 629]

10 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

Across the board cuts suck donkey balls. Public administrators and lawmakers need to go through the difficult process of deciding which capabilities and services can be cut. 

 

yes it sucks but it is the only fair way to do it so everyone is crying and all share in the pain. (with the goal of saving our federal credit rating)

Take 2% of that budget cut(so 8% and 12%) and reallocate as the majority party wants.  Now we have no cuts and no cuts being proposed.(AFAIK)

Edited July 29, 2018 by zork

[David Dennison 18651]

3 minutes ago, zork said:

yes it sucks but it is the only fair way to do it so everyone is crying and all share in the pain.  Take 2% of that budget cut(so 8% and 12%) and reallocate as the majority party wants.  Now we have no cuts and no cuts being proposed.(AFAIK)

The problem is, not everyone shares in the pain.

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The problem is, not everyone shares in the pain.

Everyone who is getting cut shares the pain.(any program that is a part of the across the board cuts minus the reallocation allocations people perhaps)

It is a problem but maybe the answer is free college, medicaid for all, etc.(edit: back on topic)

Edited July 29, 2018 by zork

[David Dennison 18651]

7 minutes ago, zork said:

Everyone who is getting cut shares the pain.(any program that is a part of the across the board cuts minus the reallocation allocations people perhaps)

It is a problem but maybe the answer is free college, medicaid for all, etc.(edit: back on topic)

For some people pain is an inconvenience. For others pain is literal pain, as in hunger. So let's maybe remember that.